Below is my column in The Hill on the importance of capitalism to not just the foundation but the future of our Republic. The Trump Accounts could prove critical in the revival of capitalism in the United States.
Here is the column:
Capitalism is under attack from classrooms to town halls to voting booths. According to polls, a rising segment of the population is calling for socialism or even communism as young people embrace a radical chic in the country. And this week, another socialist looks ready to join a growing “squad” in Congress.
On our 250th anniversary, the fight over capitalism and economic freedom could prove critical to the future of this republic. However, there is an unexpected change that could help reverse this trend.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently announced that one million families have already signed up for the new tax-privileged Trump Accounts, which will be seeded with $1,000 in taxpayer funds for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028.
With an anticipated 25 million participants, the initiative is one of the most ambitious and potentially impactful in U.S. history. But its true impact may be far greater than the wealth that it could generate for families. It may just be the determinative factor in preserving this Republic in this century.
This month, Simon and Schuster released my new book on the founding and the future of the American republic — “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” The book asks whether this unique republic can survive in the 21st century amid growing economic, political, and social challenges.
What many celebrating our 250th anniversary do not appreciate is that this is also the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, released around the same time as the Declaration of Independence. The book was not a great success in Great Britain. In addition to its foundational support for capitalism, it challenged the mercantilist policies of the British Empire and supported the claims of the colonies in seeking greater economic freedoms.
Smith, however, was immediately embraced by the founders, who saw his work as the perfect economic theory to advance their political theory. Ours was the first Enlightenment Revolution based on a belief in natural rights that came from God, not governments.
Yet, the founders knew that true individual liberty could not be achieved without economic freedom. Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” offered an idea of individual economic freedom where whole economies were driven by the individual tastes and choices of citizens.
The combination would prove transformative, as the U.S. became not only the world’s oldest large-scale democracy but also history’s greatest economy. We will need that combination in the years to come to maintain what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.”
The book looks at the expected impact of new technology, from robotics to AI, in the possible creation of a large population of unemployed, unproductive citizens. The question is how the likely state support for a large segment of our population will change their relationship to the government, changing the dynamic of what it is to be a citizen.
The danger of a “kept citizenry” is that we will lose the essential independence that our founders wanted to instill in new Americans from their government.
As we face these challenges, we are seeing a rise in support for socialism and communism in the West. It is the rage among young people who have no experience or memory of the socialist governments that collapsed in the prior century. Their understanding of socialism comes from armchair revolutionaries in colleges and the sloganeering of figures like Zohran Mamdani about introducing them to “the warmth of collectivism.”
That brings us back to the Trump accounts. The insidious aspect of past socialist systems is that their consistent failure often resulted in demands to “double down,” to increase state subsidies, nationalizations, and central planning. For their part, citizens can become accustomed to government support.
When socialist François Mitterrand came to power in France in 1981, promising a “rupture with capitalism,” he quickly destroyed the country’s economy. However, he continued to dazzle French citizens with promises of free money, even appointing Andre Henry as the Minister of Free Time to assist citizens in their new socialist leisure.
The same seductive appeal is evident today in the U.S. and other Western countries. Sixty-five percent of Democratic voters have a favorable view of socialism. An even greater percentage of young Britons want to live under socialism, and 72 percent favor nationalization of industries.
Capitalism was key to the success of the American Republic, and it will be even more important in the coming years. As jobs are wiped out through robotics and AI, we will have to shift to homocentric jobs and productivity to preserve not just economic but also political liberty.
We cannot preserve that liberty as some arts-and-crafts citizenry, entertained with state-subsidized leisure and distractions. The $6.25 billion gift of Michael and Susan Dell (now augmented by dozens of corporations) could offer the single best hope for the survival of our system. Millions of young people will be able to experience the benefits of investments, savings and, most importantly, economic independence.
It has the benefit of being a tangible lesson about capitalism — not simply an abstraction pulled from the pages of the Wealth of Nations. As socialist experiments replicate the failures of past eras, these accounts will offer a stark contrast for a rising generation. It is an investment that must be extended beyond 2028 to inculcate values of economic and political independence in the 21st century.
For young Americans, there has been a continual barrage of anti-capitalist sentiments. However, there is still muscle memory in this country of the gifts that free markets brought to a free people.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Well, at least you come across as a humble braggart and know-it-all.
At least he knows more than you.
The Clinton Era (Bill never had a non-government paying job) caused the financial crisis of 2008 through banks making a lot of loans to a lot of people who either could not or would not pay the money back.
We are semi-socialistic now. Our government is involved in just about everything, taxing our water, income, purchases, books, food, entertainment, transportation, medical care/supplies and our taxes. They tax our taxes, indeed.
Yet, our capitalistic foundation has made us the envy of the world for generations. Illegals don’t flood to other nations as they do here. We are suckers, too. We can’t resist giving away our money to just about every cause under the sun, beneficial or not. We have kept the world solvent for generations. We have made it possible for even our enemies to prosper. In return, we are hated.
I think this is best understood as a systems question. Every system produces the kind of people it trains. So the real issue isn’t labels or policies, it’s what kind of citizen we are forming.
A republic requires citizens who are capable, independent, and accustomed to responsibility. When citizens are formed that way, they are better able to blunt abuses of power, whether that power is corporate, regulatory, or technological. They can organize, compete, withdraw consent, and demand accountability without immediately turning to the state.
That’s why the Trump Accounts matter or don’t matter depending on how they function. The issue isn’t the $1,000. It’s whether the system creates a lived experience of ownership, saving, and long-term thinking, or reinforces the idea that government is the primary provider.
Systems that produce dependent citizens weaken a republic. Systems that form responsible, self-directed citizens strengthen it. Formation comes first. Everything else follows.
Personally I think we are living in an age of “freeism”. Politicians are promising free things to everyone without ever saying who is going to pay for all of this free stuff. I get it, I want free stuff too, but I have lived long enough to have learned nothing is free.
I keep hearing nobody wants to work anymore and while I take it with a grain of salt, I also understand why people think that today. Why work at a bottom wage job when politicians promise me free things and all I have to do is vote for them.
The powers that be created this constant victim class that have given up working harder than the guy next to them to get ahead because they are victims. I cannot win, so why try? Where is my free stuff?
Those that work harder than the guy next to them are fed up because nobody gave them anything and they are having fingers pointed at them and demanded to turn over their hard earned things to someone who won’t earn it because they were told it is free.
Everyone is angry and why? Because it is supposed to be free. Except it is not, never has been, and never will be free. You have to earn it. If you do not start very high on the ladder of life, you can still work your way up the ladder through hard work and determination.
JD Vance, Obama, Bill Clinton, and Wes Moore all have this in common. None of them were well off and none came from any kind of money and they were all from broken homes. They ALL worked hard to achieve their goals. ALL of them had help along the way, but that’s the rub, when you are working hard, help shows up at the right moment to get one through tough periods. That’s reflected in all of their stories and others that have written their stories into books and countless others that we have never heard about.
So my advice is to not expect the free stuff that is never going to arrive and if it does, so much the better. Put your nose to the grindstone and start grinding. You will go farther than those that are waiting for the free stuff.
BTW, maybe I am wrong, but I have yet to see any of the four mentioned give away their hard earned money for free stuff for others.
That is the actual lesson and you know what? I do not blame them.
They earned it.
Despite what the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) say, it’s not free; there are 38 trillion dollars of debt.
Do you think they’re going to pay their loan payments when they get their bills in Compton and East L.A.?
I mean, whom do you imagine is going to pay the statement for the promises the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) have made?
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) will likely just say that they’re going out on strike, with the full expectation that the capable, ambitious, and successful producers will foot the bills.
And the Supreme Court of the “Black-Robed Dictatorship of the Juristocracy” will allow it no matter the laws and the Constitution.
AOC, who knows nothing except how to serve alcohol, makes $174,000.00 a year. You and I are required to pay her salary. “No taxation without what ?” She represents traitors, street thugs and everyone who hates America.
Capitalism-Schmapitalism!
_______________________________
“It’s the [Freedom and Self-Reliance], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces”—commerce being only the “buying and selling.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
The 14th Amendment allows ONLY “the equal protection of the laws,” which has always been the case for citizens, and does not nullify the dominion of the owner of private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and basic infrastructure only.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then, and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
From a play by Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer: ‘RICHELIEU’
Author’s Preface to Richelieu, London March 1839
“Richelieu himself is still what he was in his own day, a man of two characters. If, on the one hand, he is justly represented as inflexible and vindictive, crafty and unscrupulous ; so, on the other, it cannot be denied that he was placed in times in which the long impunity of every license required stern examples ; that he was beset by perils and intrigues, which gave a certain excuse to the subtlest inventions of self-defence ; that his ambition was inseparably connected with a passionate love for the glory of his country ; and that, if he was her dictator, he was not less her benefactor. It has been fairly remarked by the most impartial historians, that he was no less generous to merit than severe to crime ; that, in the various departments of the state, the army, and the church, he selected and distinguished the ablest aspirants ; that the wars which he conducted were, for the most part, essential to the preservation…., in spite of those wars, the people were not oppressed with exorbitant imposts ; and that he left the kingdom he had governed in a more flourishing and vigorous state….”
Does Fiction become reality or the inverse; regardless, lots of what was written above could be said is current today.
Nicely done
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or less to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
These goals are so indefensible in a country founded on liberty and equality that it is necessary for conservatives to cover them up with lies.
This core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated explicitly. It has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, that is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny.
On the Right, US citizenship has always been a matter of race and white power. The overarching objective of conservatism since the founding has been maintenance of a social order in which rich white men are on top. But that can’t be plainly said in the land of freedom and opportunity, where everyone supposedly has an equal shot at success if they work hard and play by the rules.
So the Right simply lies.
The Republicans say “illegal immigration” is a matter of law enforcement. They say “border integrity” is a matter of national security. They say liberal immigration policies that fall short of enforcing the law and securing the border debase what it means to be a law-abiding US citizen.
What the Republicans really mean by being a citizen is being white.
Consider the statement by white supremacist Nick Fuentes.
He said Renee Good and Alex Pretti were “race traitors,” who were “not acting like citizens.”
But as the right expands its power, it sometimes requires new and better rationalizations. It occasionally finds it necessary to slough off the old lies.
Since the 1990s, for instance, nothing has been more “sacred” than the Second Amendment. We were told the freedom to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” On the strength of this apparent conviction, little if anything has been done to address the spread of shooting massacres over the last decade.
Yet when the Trump regime needed an explanation for why Border Patrol officers were forced to kill Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis, the sacredness of the Second Amendment was easily forgotten.
Alex Pretti was legally permitted to conceal carry. He did not brandish his weapon. CBP disarmed him before he was shot. That, however, wasn’t enough.
“You can’t have guns,” Trump said in the aftermath. “You can’t walk in with guns. You just can’t. You can’t walk in with guns. You can’t do that.”
In another example, US attorney for DC, Jeanine Pirro said, “You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you’re going to jail. I don’t care if you have a license in another district and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail.”
The narrative here is that Pretti was not a “real” citizen. As such, he did not have any 2nd Amendment rights, and deserved to die. He belongs to the out-group.
For decades the right has refused to act on hundreds of mass shooting massacres, citing the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. Now, in the case of Pretti, the sanctity of the 2nd amendment is casually cast aside because it does not fit the real narrative of protecting the in-group of faithful, white conservatives whom the law protects but does not bind.
Conservative “philosophy” is built on a completely fluid set of lies masquerading as core principles designed to protect the chosen group of white supremacists.
These lies can be casually cast aside and changed to fit any given narrative that supports and protects the supremacy of white males.
Let’s review what the American Founders said when they built their country which seems pretty clear:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY….”
– Preamble to the Constitution, 1789
_________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton, 1802
ONE THING IS FOR SURE. COUNT ON IT LIKE THE SUNRISE. EVERYTHING A RADICAL, AMERICAN HATING NAZI SAYS, IS FALSE. NOTE THE CONTINUATION OF THE QUOTE:
“making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court”
“On the Right, US citizenship has always been a matter of race and white power.”
Absolutely! Ask Barack!
U MORON
Conservatism is NOT an ideology.
It is a rule of nature.
You can be conservative AND most anything else, though some combinations make little sense.
The rule of nature that is conservatism is:
Nearly all change fails, disrupting things that are is more likely to make things worse than better.
Therefore change is best tested outside of government by those who can survive the likely failure.
It is that simple.
It has nothing to do with any of the ingroup outgroup race nonsense you are spouting.
You can win every debate if YOU get to define all the terms in ways to best suit your argument.
But calling a car a duck does not make it able to fly.
John, here is a very good article I received today from Law & Liberty regarding this very topic. You might find it interesting:
Russell Kirk reminded conservatives that conservatism is not an ideology. It is a disposition, a state of mind, a habit of mind. It is as much, if not more, about abiding by a standard of character than it is about defending intellectual propositions. Aristotle’s writings on moderation and friendship articulate part of what it means to have a conservative disposition. The point is not that conservatives are only interested in character, but that prudent political action and right thinking require reflection, study, and humility.
Intellectual conservatism and political conservatism are, no doubt, linked. Yet, it is worth remembering that the former is apt to have a more historical and philosophical perspective. It is the product, at its best, of dispassionate reflection that has as its objective knowledge, not power. The exercise of power should be tempered by knowledge, especially wisdom about the limits of politics that stem from the human condition. The frenetic pace and pressure of politics are not conducive to intellectual study and reflection.
https://lawliberty.org/the-meaning-of-intellectual-conservatism/
This is all utter nonsense. A pack of vicious and ignorant lies.
This isn’t analysis. It’s a definition rigged to exclude counterexamples.
You assert that conservatism “consists of exactly one proposition,” then declare that proposition immoral. That is not an argument. It’s a stipulation. By that method, any tradition can be reduced to its worst abuses and declared illegitimate by fiat.
If conservatism were truly the belief that law protects some and binds others, it would not need constitutions, due process, equal protection, or limits on power. Those are conservative restraints precisely because history shows what happens when power is unconstrained.
You repeatedly conflate hypocrisy with essence. Political actors violating stated principles does not prove those principles are lies. By that logic, civil rights abuses would prove equality a sham, and corruption would prove the rule of law meaningless.
The racial claim fails on its face. The American conservative tradition has argued, from the Founding forward, that rights attach to persons by nature, not by race. When conservatives abandon that claim, they are not revealing conservatism’s core. They are contradicting it.
Your examples rely on selective quotation and insinuation rather than law. Whether a specific use of force was justified is a legal question. Declaring someone an “out-group” by ideology does not make it so. The Constitution does not confer rights based on political loyalty or race, and any official who acts as if it does is violating the law, not fulfilling conservatism.
The entire essay assumes what it needs to prove: that restraint, constitutional limits, and equal protection are a “cover story” rather than the stated end. That assumption is never defended. It is simply repeated.
This is not critique. It is caricature.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom ”
In today’s world, words are twisted by those who seek to advance falsehoods. That is what you have done, leaving your entire statement in a vast void, floating nowhere.
Keynes vs. Hayek rap battle round 1:
Keynes vs. Hayek rap battle round 2:
Speaking of “Anniversaries,” for 250 years, so-called Americans have been endeavoring mightily to give this country away to illegal aliens.
They’re just about done.
To be clear, the Founders conferred upon Americans A Nation, Its Laws, and Its Population.
That is America, the Constitution, and the Naturalization Acts.
The Bee reports that AOC is sad “free market” doesn’t mean a store where all items are free:
https://babylonbee.com/news/ocasio-cortez-disappointed-to-learn-free-markets-arent-grocery-stores-where-you-dont-have-to-pay-for-anything
“I’m really, like really excited,” she said on a live Instagram video. “I thought the U.S. was all about oppressive capitalistic systems of inequality, but when I heard about these free markets, I realized we were in better shape than I had thought.”
@oldman
Oh, she is definitely the poster child for her generation and its political idiocy. We got to see what things would be like if they were in charge from 2020-2024. No, and she is in the cohort where she is not used to hearing the complete sentence that is, ‘No.’. What has happened to the dem party, with the likes of her as its ambassador, passed parody a long time ago and then got serious.
Pro tip: AOC is not smart, is not ‘grassroots’, and is not the future. People like me will likely never get to retire because we simply can’t hand the levers of society to overgrown children like her, and someone will still have to do things. If we get past all of this, her woke millennial cohort will be viewed by history as a science experiment gone wrong, never to be repeated.
Quote of the day…
“If your patriotism crumbles because a Puerto Rican sang upbeat music at a football game, you’re not strong. You’re soft.”
MIKE NELLIS
I guess MAGA thought it was better listening to a performer that encouraged relations with underage girls over a Puerto Rican performer. Says a lot about MAGA doesn’t it?
Wait, is that what they really mean with “family value”? Sexual relations with underage girls?
The way that guy was dancing it suggested relations with under aged girls.
Anon
Well well now, that just depends upon what the meaning of IT is…
It is primarily left wing nut entertainers who made the trip to lolita island.
I prefer my entertainment to be good. I am not particular about the politics of the artists.
Roman Polanski belongs in jail. But his movies are often excellent.
“God helps those who help themselves.”
– Algernon Sydney, 1683
_____________________________
How much do we pay to provide “free stuff” and “free status” to the parasitic denizens down in that —-hole?
The Bible says Thou Shalt Not Covet, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, and Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Quote of the day…
If you are wondering why some guy is singing in Spanish at a predominately English speaking crowd, you have critical thinking skills.
Sounds like you need help. If you didn’t get what Bad Bunnys message was, that is on you. Says a lot about your lack of empathy.
How does someone understand a message in a language they dont speak?
“Hey! It is the US 250th birthday. Why is that guy not waving the American flag?”
“I dunno, I dont speak Spanish.”
I do not care what Bad Bunny’s message is – and I probably would not like it if I understood it.
14% of those living in the US speak spanish according to wikipedia.
That would be about 1 in 7 who understood BB’s message.
But most important his music was just not my thing.
If it is yours – good for you.
NO this has nothing to do with empathy.
Left wing nuts want to make everything about empathy.
All that does is results in poor decisions.
Such as Left wing nuts getting arrested or killed because they turn violent to empathize with foreign criminals.
It’s a gigantic screw you to the English speaking population, a denial of the benefits of the US political and economic system. If all nations were created equal, there wouldn’t be millions of illegal aliens in the US. There would be no reason for them to leave their homelands. The US is preferred because our political and economic systems based on English law and Scotish free market economics have been successful with our diverse population.
AI ( How long was the Super Bowl halftime show )
The Super Bowl halftime show performance itself typically lasts between 12 and 15 minutes, while the entire halftime intermission, including setup and takedown, lasts approximately 25-30 minutes. Recent performances, such as those by Usher in 2024 and Rihanna in 2023, ran for roughly 13–14 minutes.
Bad Bunny has had his “15 Minutes of Fame”, so we can all go back to rest now.
You know, we really appreciated those craters out near the Cambodian border and the Parrot’s Beak. Nice work. They made it a very bad day for the —-s.
That’s kind of a dumb quote. If someone doesn’t like the halftime show, that has nothing to do with patriotism.
The NFL is free to do as they please.
It is there job to figure out what will maximize their interest and therefore revenue.
If this worked – more power to them.
I did not like the music. There is lots of music I like, and lots I do not. Those are called personal preferences.
I also prefer my entertainment not come with politics or causes.
But if I like it I will listen regardless.
Fair, but again, none of that has anything to do with patriotism. I guess whoever thought it was “quote of the day” likes incoherent statements.
John Say,
Well said.
There are musicians who I do not care for their politics but I can like their songs.
As for the NFL and the Super Bowl, meh. Have not watched a Super Bowl in over ten years. The only reason to watch was the commercials. Now you can see them all on line before the game.
I watched the Olympics last night. Much more entertaining, none of the politics dressed up as “entertainment.” Up until the NFL announced who was playing the half time show, I never even heard of Bad Bunny, let alone heard one of his songs.
The NFL is an unethical, immoral, profiteering, global purveyor of entertainment, including the profane and perverted on a “rainbow” field—it has been suggested its product is “fixed” in the same vein as the slot machines in Las Vegas—and a direct and mortal enemy of America.
That being said, the “invisible hand’s” money talks and bull—— walks.
Nail on the head, once again. Although, I fear most of the thousands of black millionaires who became rich playing in the NFL, might disagree just a tad.
Excellent piece, thank you Professor Turley.
Indeed, these spoiled ‘anti-corporate’ tools that grew up in the most peaceful and prosperous time the world has ever known and were basically protected from everything their entire lives have no idea that a socialist or communist government is the ultimate corporation, and one without anything resembling regulation that will eventually take everything from them, nor do they realize they are being exploited by people who could care less. It’s madness.
Oh, and PS – I am someone that actually believes the arts are important, but again, indeed, these kids seem to just want someone to pay their rent and feed them while they make etsy crafts. Sounds an awful lot like a parent; that is not the purpose of government, and it is juvenile in the extreme where in some cases we are talking about people who are now 40 years old. Some of us predicted this outcome when they were just children, and no one cared to listen at the time.
. Economics is a marvelous subject. It’s now all translated, explained in the language of mathematics. It’s physics, the material world. 80 percent of the people don’t and can’t speak that language.
Economics is the statistics of human behavior. The math is important but it is not the driving factor.
But the most important factor that so many get wrong is that in large enough groups human behavior is pretty close to immutable.
Both in that the groups will as a whole behave in specific ways, and in that with a large enough groups there are certain ro be a few who will seek to game the system to their advantage if allowed.
It is not an accident that socialism produces Hitler, Musolini, Stalin, Mao Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, ….
Free market capitalism does what the US constitution and our founders sought to to.
It pits those who would game the system against each others in ways that benefit everyone.
John Say it’s a mixed economy, upper half and lower half and the upper half use mathematics. The lower half works on social welfare programs and jobs created by government. The upper half wanted freedom. We don’t see them anymore. We see the social problems in the lower half.
Human behavior is immutable? It’s mutable using reason. Saves so much time.
There are health professionals predicting trump has 4-6 months left. Is it possible for him to grift more than 4 billy in that time? Took him the first year of this train wreck of an admin this time around to grift that much. But it seems spanky has goals, stakes and urgencies now.
^ Chinese Communist troll. Ignore. ^
Thanks for reading!
You should do stand up comedy. I think you would be a hit! Doesn’t the Sanitarium you’re at have some kind of special lunch show by the inmates?
Thank you. Thank you very much.
EightBall,
Didnt they claim Trump only had a few months to live a year or so ago?
USF
Who can keep up or care to keep up with their garbage of the week? I do know that they have no belief in Christianity or in our Constitution. I remember there was a Vietnam veteran Medal of Honor winner that spoke about Communism from his hospital bed and why he had enlisted, he was not alone in his belief. He believed that if it weren’t stopped there, it would be here and the fight would be in our City streets rather than a Asian jungle. Guess what, he was correct and they’re here and they are working hard to destroy us. The difference so far is the full scale shooting and destruction hasn’t started yet.
Well if the predictions are correct, then JD Vance will be next up.
That’s Ok.
@Anonymous
How’s the weather in Beijing?
James
I can tell you that answer, smoggy with a sprinkle of acid rain…
9 years ago they were predicting the same things.
Trumps networth Dropped when he was president, it skyrocketed as those of you on the left were out to get him.
That aside – what is it you think Billionaires get from more money ?
If you have a billion dollars put it into a zero interest bank account and spent 100,000/minute for 20 years you would have spent it all.
That means you could buy a brand new Gulf III every 15minutes.
Above a relatively low net worth, all increases are entirely investment and they only benefit others – not you.
There is no consequential difference in the standard of living between Elon Musk and Donald Trump or George Sorros.
Trump, Musk, Jobs, Gates, …. have done far more good in the world solely through their investment than Mother Theresa.
The trump accounts are just a ponzi scheme. Yet another source for trump and fam to personally grift and loot.
^ DNC-paid troll. Ignore. ^
Got proof there “perpetually irate” anon commenter?
neither trolls nor anti-trolls need to supply proof in a forum such as this. Even if provided, their adversary would simply dismiss it, ignore it, or claim that its not true.
No, FDR’s Social Security was, and is, a Ponzi scheme, as the current 20-40 year old are going to find out when they are the last suckers to pay into Social (In) Security and it becomes insolvent when they reach retirement. You pay into Social Security and the federal government owns the money. The yearly rate of return of these FICA taxes taken from your paycheck is about 1.23% according to Social Security Administration data. Social Security relies on FICA taxes taken from current working suckers to pay benefits to retirees, a classic Ponzi scheme. If you personally owned what you paid in FICA payroll taxes and invested it conservatively in a mutual fund or ETF comprised of 50% U.S Treasury securities and 50% equities (I.e., stocks), the conservative return would be about 5%, and likely more. The potential long-term benefit of these Trump Accounts is that the individual, not the government, owns the money in this account, including the initial $1,000 gift, any future personal deposits, and all the interest and increase in value of the assets in the account. You must be economically illiterate, or a proponent of dependence upon government (that is, a Democrat) to not understand the difference.
Vincente,
Great comment!
Oh, I do not think it is people in their 20-40s who are going to find out the hard way. Last I read, SS was going to go insolvent by 2030. Had I taken all the monies SS took out of my paychecks since I first started working, investing in index funds with low fees, I could retire in my mid fifties. Now, if I am lucky, might pay the phone bill when I goto retire.
AMERICANS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FREE
Ya know what, Vinny, you will never be able to do? You will never be able to provide a legal basis or citation of the Constitution for Social Security and Medicare. The communists reach for one in “general welfare,” but “general” is all or the whole, and Social Security and Medicare provide for only 18.7% of the population—not even close to “general welfare.” Social Security and Medicare are immutably unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court’s duty was to strike them down at the outset. The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which must have been impeached and convicted long, long ago.
If you think that – then do not invest with Trump. No one is forcing you to.
But I would ask you – if the Trump’s are grifting – who is the mark ? Who is loosing money ?
Turley did not touch this – but free markets are not a zero sum game.
Free exchange all by itself creates value.
Simple experiement. Go to a novelty store and buy $100 in assorted novelties.
Now distribute them arround a classroom.
Ask everyone to place a personal value on each item they were given.
Then give people 10 minutes to trade items hover they wish,
and ask them to value what they now have.
No one will have lost value and everyone will have gained value even though nothing chnged except who had what.
That proves two things.
Value is subjective
Who has something changes its value.
Russians here in America point out from family experience how the “warmth of collectivism” works: the representatives of the collective come into your town and look at your family business that has been generations in the making. They assess its value and decide that the people need that value more than your family does. So they take it from you without compensating you. You’re then left outside in the cold to appreciate the warmth of collectivism.
“without compensating you.”? Can cite law on that?
“Law”?!!! It is to laugh. There was no law in the USSR. The Communist Party was the law.
OldManFromKS,
Well said. Stalin did pretty much the same to the farmers, killed them, sent people out to these collectives who knew nothing about farming and millions died. Anyone who dissented, they were give a Stalinesque trail, found guilty, sent to the gulag.
USF
That sounds exactly like what has happened in South Africa?!
Post Mandella – absolutely.
White Farmers are being murdered by Blacks who exprpriate their property, and then fail to produce.
And dont forget how Stalin and Mao both starved their people to kill off oppo and control what was left in starvations wake. That’s the warmth of collectivism right there…get down with their sickness or they will burn you.
re: Elder Patriot
Bush Republicans practiced ultra liberal “borrow & spend” economics. Bush Republicans never paid for their liberal spending, instead they figuratively put the bill on the nation’s credit card. Then they gave the richest 1/10 of 1% of billionaires a tax cut.
Bush inherited a balanced budget from Bill Clinton. Even if you deduct wartime spending Republicans were very fiscally-liberal and wreckless in their spending spree (not paid for but put on credit).
If Bush Republicans had instead given tax cuts to working class Americans, it may not have thrown the economy into a deep recession in the short term. But Republicans’ liberal “borrow & spend” policies are still very bad long term.
Those fiscally-liberal Bush policies nearly collapsed the Stock Market in 2008.
Gee
I thought Greenspans derivatives, repeal of Glass-Stiegel act (Bill Clinton), bank loan mandates from Franklin Raines (Fannie and Freddie) and the mortgage greedy hedgehogs were what the cause of our economic crisis was.
The repeal of Glass-Stiegel was a GOOD thing – you will note Dodd Frank did NOT restore Glass-Steigel
in fact it did nothing of consequence, it was just typical doling out government pork and power in response to a crisis without any regard for whether that had any beneficial effect. You can tell what claims about the cause of the crisis were false by the fact that Dodd Frank made no effort to fix them.
All the nonsense at Fanny and Freddy and elsewhere – while disturbing was NOT the cause – it was a symptom.
The cause was interest rates too low for too long – and all those in power – regardless of what they aid KNEW that.
They did not legislate to stop the conduct they CLAIMED was the cause.
And there were very few actual prosecutions – because there was very little actually illegal conduct.
When long term interest rates in a domain are too low for too long, you will eventually loan all that can be loaned to good borrowers and you will slowly start lending to ever less creditworthy people, you will also drive prices up – so the longer the bubble lasts the weaker the buyers become and the higher the mortgages go until one day suddenly people realize this just does not work.
John
Totally disagree, it prevented hedge fund bankers from using the equity in your home to gamble with in the market. Once it was repealed it took only a few short years for them to destroy the mortgage industry. You’re also forgetting the economic ripple effect on the title insurance market, defaulted loans are guaranteed by insurance companies. It was the worst thing Clinton and Texas Senator Bush did. $38T is partly due to this and their Quantitative Easing BS.
My way of looking at the causes of 2008.
The foolish ones who did foolish things did so because, if they lost, frequently they paid no price. Blaming one or another reason for the disaster is OK, but I place the blame on too much shared responsibility, so that few paid.
Examples:
I put a lot of money into a bank paying the highest interest that eventually failed, knowing that each account under a different name was insured.
A person bought a house well beyond his means, where the bank loan depended on future returns of investment that never occurred.
The use of derivatives separated collateral from investments. A house could go under, and the bank couldn’t even find the mortgage papers. No one person was responsible.
Responsibility continued to drift from the individual, with much of it being held, managed, and paid for by the government, better known as the taxpayer.
Ano
Bush inherited a balanced budget from Bill Clinton.
___________________________
Not quite. They took his check book away. (GOP)
Clinton and Gingrich worked together in an incredibly fiscally responsible way.
They balanced the budget, significantly reduced entitlement spending while massively transfering people from dependence to work.
I hate Clinton and Gingrich is not a particularly moral person. but in terms of domestic policy – they were great.
You did get this one correct. Gingrich dragged Bubba BJ across the budget line. Although, to cut expenditure Clinton cut funding for defense spending in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden Al Queda surveillance. Guess what the results were?!
I have no problems pi$$ing on Bush – but get your facts straight.
The Bush tax cuts actually did “pay for themselves” – federal revenue increased.
It is well known that top marginal tax rates above 33% LOSE revenue.
it is also logically obvious that there must be a revenue optimizing tax rate and that it MUST be significantly below 50%.
We may all like working class tax cuts – but tax cuts to the working class pretty much always reduce revenue and do not benefit the economy.
The Debt under Bush 43 increased by 1.3T That was ENTIRELY the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact without them there would have been a surplus.
2008 was not a stock market collapse any more than the great depression was.
Stock prices are a measure of value. The stocks are the thing of value.
When the market “collapsed” – no stocks disappeared. There was the same total amount of actual stock.
What changed was the perceived value of that stock.
The Great recession like the great recession was a classic economic bubble in a durable asset.
In 1929 – it was a bubble primarily in factories – the US built 3 times the industrial capacity it could consume.
Though there was also a housing bubble at the same time.
An oversupply of factories cause the price of the stock in those companies to tank – the law of supply and demand
The value of stock is the value of the companies issuing that stock. Stocks are essentially money backed by the value of the company.
In 2006 home production and prices greatly exceeded demand. That triggered a collapse in home values.
Homes were secured by mortgages, so the collapse in the value of homes triggered a collapse in the value of mortgages.
And that triggered a collapse in the value of companies that owned those mortgages.
WE MOSTLY held this off until early 2008 when NEW Basell II Mark 2 Market accounting rules suddenly kicked in reqiring banks to mark down the value of their liquid assets which instantly reduced their ability to extend credit, and that caused the entire economy to SEIZE because short term lending is critical to the smooth operation of the economy.
The housing bubble was bad – and assets like housing are the very worst place to have an asset bubble – the economy lost MUCH MORE value with the collapse of the tech bubble in 2001 but that was barely a hiccup for the economy.
It is not how much value is lost – it is WHERE it is lost that matters.
Anyway M2M slowly through 2008 eroded the available credit in the banking system as the value of mortage backed securities slowly declined.
But the problem peaked in summber when two MBS offerings Failed to sell at 21 cents on the dollar and 70% of the banking industry instantly became regulatorily insolvent. They were not in the red, they were not losing money – in fact banks made alot of money in 2008 to everyon’s anger. But because the value of their liquid assets collapsed, they could not lend any more money, and the enitre economy lost the ability to borrow short term.
Did bush bear some culpability in this – yes, but not alot. Clinton also bor responsibility – like the 1929 crash this bubble grew slowly.
But the primary driver was the FED – which is always were recesions (an inflation) come from – interest rates too low for too long.
As little as a 1% increase in the interest rates for sub prime mortgages starting in 2001 would have stopped the housing bubble in its tracks.
I am not a Bush 43 fan – but lets not blame him for more than is his fault.
Obama was far worse economically. We have had far worse recessions and depressions.
Only TWO had weak strung out recoveries – those were the great depression and the great recession.
In 1921 we saw a far worse collapse and a rapid recovery in less than 9 months.
Trump saw the Worst single quarter economic collapse in US history in 2020, followed immediately by the greatest single term economic recovery in US history.
Selling blocks of mortgages filled with unsecured loans, a Clinton stroke of genius, caused the collapse.
At no point in the Clinton presidency were the government’s account actually balanced. The final budget was balanced, but actual spending and income were not. There was a significant deficit.
Socialism can’t work because the people voting for it are consistently believing in those advocating for it. Nancy Pelosi is the prime example.
Pelosi adamantly objected to George W Bush’s proposal to allow FICA taxes to be invested in the stock market. Meanwhile, she made hundreds of millions directing her personal income in the stocks of companies that she controlled the governing legislation over.
Greed governs personal decisions. Capitalism takes that greed and turns it to the greater good by resulting in the highest possible return. Something the Pelosi’s of the world vigorously oppose lest the people’s dependency wanes and her control (re:Illicit profits) is lost.
Our Framers sought tp create an enduring Republic based on individual rights. Socialism is completely incompatible with those goals because the election of single malevolent leader could destroy that republic forever. Just look at Europe. Their rights are being eviscerated. Especially, their right to speak freely. They now hate us because, after 80 years of freeloading off of the US we’ve asked them to pay for their own defense, the singular role of government. Typical of the spoiled brats that they have become.
Mises should be required course work in every school in our country.
Mises is good, but there is a small army of perfectly good works that everyone shoudl be exposed to
Smith. Bastiat, Ricardo, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Coase just to name a few – there are far more.
Free Works like Reads I, Pencil are excellent and can be found on yourtube, or many many spinoffs, like I, toaster or I, Whiskey.
Hazletts “economics in one lesson”, Walter Blocks “defending the undefendable”is excellent and terrifying – demonstrating that free markets work best even in areas all people think absolutely require government.
Coases “How China became Capitalist” is not only an excellent history of China pre Xi, but also a really easy to understand primer on economics.
De Soto’s The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else is also an excellent demonstration of the criticality of property rights.
and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Few have the time to read all of this, but no one should escape High School without more exposured to these authors and works than to DEI or frankly history, sociology or psychology.
An understanding of basic economics will substantially improve the rest of your life more than most anything else.